On Sep 17, 2013, at 6:36 PM, Steve Crocker <st...@shinkuro.com> wrote:
> I'm in agreement. > > We have not had any standards so far regarding maintenance of the validity of > contact information. For example, my contact information for the April 1, > 1995 RFC 1776 is: > >> Steve Crocker >> CyberCash, Inc. >> 2086 Hunters Crest Way >> Vienna, VA 22181 >> >> Phone: +1 703 620 1222 >> EMail: croc...@cybercash.com >> > The email address, phone number and postal address became stale a long time > ago. If ORCID is I was always wondering the authors can't get an @ietf.org address, which is listed in the RFC and is used to forward e-mail to another account. Best regards Michael > introduced, it's likely to be at least as good as email addresses, etc. > Let's avoid or at least defer trying to endow them with additional properties > such as permanence until there is some experience. > > Steve > > > > > On Sep 17, 2013, at 12:16 PM, John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> wrote: > >> >> >> --On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:20 -0400 Michael Richardson >> <m...@sandelman.ca> wrote: >> >>> >>> I did not know about ORCID before this thread. >>> I think it is brilliant, and what I've read about the mandate >>> of orcid.org, and how it is managed, I am enthusiastic. >>> >>> I agree with what Joel wrote: >>> >>> Asking for ORCID support in the tool set and asking for IETF >>> endorsement are two very different things. >>> >>> Having tool support for it is a necessary first step to >>> permitting IETF contributors to gain experience with it. We >>> need that experience before we can talk about consensus. >>> >>> So, permit ORCID, but not enforce. >> >> The more I think about it, the more I think that Andy or someone >> else who understands ORCIDs and the relevant organizations, >> etc., should be working on a URN embedding of the things. Since >> we already have provisions for URIs in contact information, an >> ORCID namespace would permit the above without additional >> tooling or special RFC Editor decision making. It would also >> avoid entanglement with and controversies about the rather long >> RFC Editor [re]tooling queue. >> >> Doing the write-up would require a bit of effort but, in >> principle, >> URN:ORICD:.... >> is pretty close to trivially obvious. >> >> Comments about dogfood-eating and not inventing new mechanisms >> when we have existing ones might be inserted by reference here. >> >>> An interesting second (or third) conversation might be about >>> how I could insert ORCIDs into the meta-data for already >>> published documents. >> >> With a URN embedding that question would turn into the much more >> general one about how URIs in contact metadata could be >> retroactively inserted and updated. In some ways, that is >> actually an easier question. >> >> best, >> john >> >> >> >> >> > >
